Vancouver Realtor facing criminal charges and lifetime ban from Beer League hockey for kicking an opponent's face with his skates

[beakerboy]

What legal responsibility does a referee have to put themselves in harm's way by intervening?

I would think they sign a contract with the league before they're permitted to ref, so I'd be curious what the contract says about physical altercations

I mean, in the US, cops aren't obligated to put themselves in harms way, so a referee certainly wouldn't be. They might not get any more assignments if they stand back and let a full on line brawl happen though.

But that is talking in the extremes. Refs are hopefully de-escalating things by throwing guys out or giving penalties before things boil over. With this particular incident, you can't tell if things had happened to this point where some sort of incident should have been expected or if that guy was just a crazy loose cannon.

@Ducks4Cup When you're talking about in public, you also have to take into account where you live. Some places you have an obligation to run away before responding with violence. Some places you get to go into Costco in your "Running things since 1776" shirt and scream that some old lady is making you feel threatened before you get to shoot her.

On the ice is different, because you have implied consent to certain acts of violence, but so does your opponent. If you're Phil Kessel at the faceoff dot and John Scott is telling you he's going to push your face in, you're probably allowed to be swiping at his legs while running away, since slashing (and fighting) is not out of the realm of expected hockey. Going McSorley to his helmet is probably no good since that is out of the realm of expected hockey plays.

 

[tarheelhockey]

What legal responsibility does a referee have to put themselves in harm's way by intervening?

Legal? Zero. This is a low-paying part time job, in a league where fights are explicitly illegal. Unlike in professional/junior hockey, there's no assumption that a ref should have to risk bodily harm by breaking up a fight, any more than there's an assumption that a Wal Mart employee should do the same if customers start fighting. Ref would be legally justified to just stand there and watch, if he thought it would be dangerous to intervene.

 

[Neutrinos]

Legal? Zero. This is a low-paying part time job, in a league where fights are explicitly illegal. Unlike in professional/junior hockey, there's no assumption that a ref should have to risk bodily harm by breaking up a fight, any more than there's an assumption that a Wal Mart employee should do the same if customers start fighting. Ref would be legally justified to just stand there and watch, if he thought it would be dangerous to intervene.

Since you mention professional/junior hockey, I'm guessing the refs are under no legal obligation to intervene during a fight in those leagues either, otherwise, they would intervene immediately

If they are legally obligated to stop a fight, wouldn't they be liable in the event a fighter was seriously injured or killed in an altercation they allowed to continue?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Since you mention professional/junior hockey, I'm guessing the refs are under no legal obligation to intervene during a fight in those leagues either, otherwise, they would intervene immediately

If they are legally obligated to stop a fight, wouldn't they be liable in the event a fighter was seriously injured or killed in an altercation they allowed to continue?

That’s correct, they’re under no legal obligation even in the NHL. The pressure for them to get involved comes from the standpoint of keeping their jobs, not from the legal system.

“Assumption of risk” is what allows the NHL to require its employees to break up fights (similar to having a job as a bouncer) but that assumption doesn’t exist in rec hockey.

 

[Yukon Joe]

That’s correct, they’re under no legal obligation even in the NHL. The pressure for them to get involved comes from the standpoint of keeping their jobs, not from the legal system.

“Assumption of risk” is what allows the NHL to require its employees to break up fights (similar to having a job as a bouncer) but that assumption doesn’t exist in rec hockey.

@tarheelhockey I swear I'm not picking on you. I just want to make sure the correct information is out there.

Your first part is correct: no legal obligation to intervene, at least from the legal system. Hell there's no legal obligation on the police to come and help you if you call 911, other than as you say from fear of losing their jobs.

"assumption of risk" gets a bit complicated. First of all it applies to a civil law suit, and we have been looking at this incident in terms of the criminal law.

But assumption of risk absolutely does apply to rec hockey. Lets say you're playing without a cage, you take a slapper off your jaw and lose some teeth.. You decide you want to sue, argue the other player was reckless and negligent to be firing off a slapper like that right at you. But putting aside whether that slapper is negligence or not, "assumption of risk" absolutely applies. Being hit by a puck is a known risk of playing hockey and you can't sue if it happens.

Assumption of risk is what protects the parties when you sign a waiver.

But it gets more complicated when it comes to fighting, which is not allowed in any level of fighting, and extra not allowed in rec hockey.

 

[tarheelhockey]

@tarheelhockey I swear I'm not picking on you. I just want to make sure the correct information is out there.

Your first part is correct: no legal obligation to intervene, at least from the legal system. Hell there's no legal obligation on the police to come and help you if you call 911, other than as you say from fear of losing their jobs.

"assumption of risk" gets a bit complicated. First of all it applies to a civil law suit, and we have been looking at this incident in terms of the criminal law.

But assumption of risk absolutely does apply to rec hockey. Lets say you're playing without a cage, you take a slapper off your jaw and lose some teeth.. You decide you want to sue, argue the other player was reckless and negligent to be firing off a slapper like that right at you. But putting aside whether that slapper is negligence or not, "assumption of risk" absolutely applies. Being hit by a puck is a known risk of playing hockey and you can't sue if it happens.

Assumption of risk is what protects the parties when you sign a waiver.

But it gets more complicated when it comes to fighting, which is not allowed in any level of fighting, and extra not allowed in rec hockey.

Oh, for sure. I was referring only to the risks that employees can be formally held accountable for taking.

When a security guard takes a job, it's understood that there's a risk of getting injured in a violent confrontation... it's inherent in the nature of the job. NHL refs can be expected (formally, in terms of their job appraisal) to engage in that risk because the nature of a professional sports referee's job includes breaking up altercations. In rec hockey, because there's no expectation that players will get in fights, there's no reasonable expectation for a referee to throw himself into the fray. A rink that held refs accountable for jumping into fights would be asking for an OSHA violation (or international equivalent).